If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Re: What exactly are the different Qiraat?

I had someone check and Imam Suyuti says the following in his masterpiece, al-Itiqan

Al-Jazari truly mastered this chapter to perfection, and I have determined that the canonical readings fall into the following types:

First, the mutawatir, which is what was transmitted by a group who could not possibly have colluded on a lie, from an identical group, and so forth to the end of its chain. Most of the readings are of this type.

The second type is (i) what is sound in its chain without reaching the level of tawatur, (ii) conforms to Arabic (iii) and script as well as (iv) being well-known among the canonical readers who consider neither a mistake nor an anomaly, (v) and being recited [as Qur'an, e.g. in prayer]. ... Its examples are what the paths from the Seven have differed in transmitting, some of the narrators transmitting it and some not. (Al-Itiqan, 2:502-504)

Imam Suyuti does however quote Ibn Jazari as saying that if tawatur had been required for every single letter and vowel in the Qur'an, it would have excluded from it many of the well-established, sahih variants in reading. Imam Suyuti's words in the Itiqan quoted in the original article in question have to do with the ahruf, not the qira'at. It is an affirmation that the dialect of the Quraysh is what was the revealed Qur'an and what most of the Companions recited. It has nothing to do with the qira'at, as Imam Suyuti in a separate part of the book clearly affirmed their validity, as is referenced above. So if Imam al-Suyuti was the basis for the objections regarding the validity of more than one qira'at, it seems that his words have been misunderstood.

Regarding Hafs and the credibility of the reciters of the Qur'an in general, Imam Dhahabi says,

"As for al-Daraqutni's statement that he [Hafs] was da`if, he meant in the recension (dabt) of reports. When it comes to canonical readings, he is most trustworthy (thabt) - an Imam! Likewise, a group of the canonical readers are all athbaat in Qira'a but not hadith, such as Nafi`, al-Kasa'i, Hafs: they rose up to the difficulties of the Qur'anic wordings and they ascertained them. They did not do this for hadith, just as a number of the hadith masters meticulously mastered hadith but not Qira'a. This is the case for everyone who excels in a particular discipline exclusively of others, and Allah knows best." (Siyar A`lam al-Nubala')

And Imam Dhahabi's meticulousness in his art is well-known to you and they are especially important because he was also considered an imam of the qira'at in his time. Qira'a was the knack of the imams of recitation and rawis, not hadith.

So the claim that the main qira'at are not mutawatir is mistaken and a very serious allegation against this ummah. Their number being reduced to ten personalities is only an identification of the main students of the Companions - those who were most well-known for the beauty and mastery of their recitation, in the same way that a mutawatir hadith often is only directly attributed to a few Companions at first glance. The fact that there are numerous qira'at, more than the ten which are accepted as authentic, means absolutely nothing. Rather, like the existence of forgeries in the hadith science, it only proves the veracity of the discipline. The notion that the recitation of Medina was only through Nafi` and Abu Jafar, for example, is silly. If you simply glance at the three chains that the article quotes from `Asim, you find no less than 5 Companions that `Asim transmitted from. The words of al-Zarkhasi were responded to, yet the author mentions nothing about the scholars who disagreed with him.

The Qur'an was read, memorized and transmitted by all and the fact that certain imams were recognized for their expertise in this means only that; unless it is your claim that scholars like Malik were more meticulous in their authenticity of hadith than the Qur'an. For Malik for a surety described the recitation of Nafi` as sunna and are you seriously suggestion that he would take "a thousand from thousand over one from one", except when it related to the Book of Allah? Never that...

And Allah knows best.

Last edited by lumumba_s; 15th February 2009 at 13:14.

"Allah is the point. If it is other-than-Allah, then it is besides the point." - Nuh Ha Mim Keller

Re: What exactly are the different Qiraat?

Imam Suyuti's words in the Itiqan quoted in the original article in question have to do with the ahruf, not the qira'at...So if Imam al-Suyuti was the basis for the objections regarding the validity of more than one qira'at, it seems that his words have been misunderstood.

I think we already understand this point, as we have already stated before. Nobody is confusing the ahruf with the qiraat. Now, since this point was and has been established, can you actually tell us what the ahruf are?

And Imam Dhahabi's meticulousness in his art is well-known to you and they are especially important because he was also considered an imam of the qira'at in his time. Qira'a was the knack of the imams of recitation and rawis, not hadith.

That is not disputed either. But can you tell us why somebody would be considered da'eef in the transmission of hadeeth, but that suddenly doesn't apply when it comes to the very Book of Allah, which is obviously the primary source of religion?

Last edited by ihsan; 16th February 2009 at 00:06.

"Those who deny the strength of truth,
God does not give them courage." - Bulleh Shah

Re: What exactly are the different Qiraat?

I will insha'Allah deal with all the points but I just wanted to mention a few things:

You said:

They believed that Nafi`'s transmission was the exact recitation mode of the Messenger (Allah bless him and give him peace).

Then you said:

In sum, after citing several authorities, including Imam Suyuti, Mufti Taqi Usmani states that the majority view, as stated by Imam Tahawi, Sufyan ibn Uyana, Ibn Wahb and Ibn Abd al-Barr is that the Qur'an was revealed in the dialect/language of the Quraysh and the Prophet allowed it to be recited in six other modes according to HIS verification. He then goes and gives Imam Malik's explanation of the hadith and states that the seven acceptable variations relate to variations in: number, gender, placement of diacritical marks, verb, syntax, transposition and pronunciation, giving an example of each.

So Nafi' was the first "mode," what are the other six? Also, do you know why the original revelation of Quraish came to be called after Nafi'?

"As for al-Daraqutni's statement that he [Hafs] was da`if, he meant in the recension (dabt) of reports. When it comes to canonical readings, he is most trustworthy (thabt) - an Imam! Likewise, a group of the canonical readers are all athbaat in Qira'a but not hadith, such as Nafi`, al-Kasa'i, Hafs: they rose up to the difficulties of the Qur'anic wordings and they ascertained them. They did not do this for hadith, just as a number of the hadith masters meticulously mastered hadith but not Qira'a. This is the case for everyone who excels in a particular discipline exclusively of others, and Allah knows best." (Siyar A`lam al-Nubala')

Do you apply Imam Dhahabi's (ra) statement in response to:

‘Abdu’l-Rahman Ibn Abi Hatim, ‘Umar Ibn Shu‘ayb Sabuni, Ahmad Ibn Hambal, Bukhari, Muslim and Nasa‘i call him Matruku’l-Hadith (From whom Ahadith are not accepted) .… In the opinion of Yahya Ibn Mu‘in as quoted by Abu Qudamah Sarakhsi and ‘Uthman Ibn Sa‘id he is not trustworthy …. ‘Ali Ibn Madini says: he is weak in matters of Hadith and I have forsaken him voluntarily. …. Abu Zur‘ah also says that he is weak in matters of Hadith ….. Salih Muhammad Al-Baghdadi says the Ahadith narrated by him are not worth writing and all of them mention unfamiliar things in religion. Zakariyyah Ibn Yahya Al-Saji narrates from Sammak and ‘Alqamah Ibn Marthad and Qays Ibn Muslim that his Ahadith are not reliable …. ‘Abdu’l-Rahman Ibn Abi Hatim says that he asked his father about Hafs. His father said that his Ahadith are not even worth writing. He is weak in matters of Hadith, cannot be attested to and his Ahadith are not acceptable. Abdu’l-Rahman Ibn Yusuf says that he is a great liar, worthy of being forsaken and forges Ahadith. Hakim Abu Ahmad says: He wastes Ahadith. Yahya Ibn Sa‘id says that he took a book from him but never returned it. He would take books from people and copy them. Abu Ahmad Ibn ‘Addi narrates from Al-Saji and Ahmad Ibn Muhammad Al-Baghdadi and Yahya Ibn Mu‘in that Hafs Ibn Sulayman and Abu Bakr Ibn ‘Ayyash are the most competent of all who know the reading of ‘Asim. Hafs is even more competent than Abu Bakr. However, Hafs is a great liar while Abu Bakr is reliable.

Now granted most of the criticism here is related to ahadith but read the bold portions and notice that they are also an assessment of Hafs' characterter. In fact, the last part - being called a liar - is related to competence in recitation.

If you could please do something for me and write the definitions of Ahruf and Qira'aat in the following format:

Ahruf - definition here

Qira'aat - definition here

Lastly, I think this quote underscores the entire matter in quite a brilliant way:

I remained in doubt about this tradition and pondered over it for more than thirty years until Allah the Almighty uncovered it for me its explanation...

While figuring it out is great one has to wonder with all the support and emphatic scholarship backing this notion a person of such a caliber took 30 years to get the point. I understand people are enlightened at different times but with so many opinions and so many issues isn't there room for question as much as he himself has stated?

Re: What exactly are the different Qiraat?

I think we already understand this point, as we have already stated before. Nobody is confusing the ahruf with the qiraat.

You apparently were confused when you applied Imam Suyuti's words about the ahruf to the qira'at and falsely claimed that he denied the other qir'aat besides Hafs were mutawatir.

Originally Posted by ihsan

But can you tell us why somebody would be considered da'eef in the transmission of hadeeth, but that suddenly doesn't apply when it comes to the very Book of Allah, which is obviously the primary source of religion?

When one takes into account the fact that YOU stated that Hafs was the only correct recitation and deny the validity of the other qira'at, that is a question that YOU need to answer. But I would imagine that it has something to do with the fact that there are 10 year old non-Arab children from Pakistan to Morocco who are hufaz in the Qur'an, but probably could not accurately transmit a single chapter from Bukhari in a manner acceptable to the hadith scholars. People were considered accurate transmitters by the verification of the `ulama, not merely because they were well liked. Is it really that hard to understand?

Ron: Firstly, it is not the Qur'an of Nafi` or of `Asim, but the riwaya of Nafi` and `Asim. The ahruf and qira'at are two different things. The ahruf relate to the things which I mentioned from Imam Malik while the qira'at relate more properly to tajwid. There clearly are differences in the way in which the Qur'an was recited at the time of the Companions, otherwise, the incident of Uthman would never have happened. Unless people want to claim that Ibn al-Shihab al-Zuhri made that up too. Secondly, asking questions is one thing, but implicitly claiming that there has been a conspiracy, the scholars of the Salaf allowed the Qur'an to be altered, and the one reading that is correct comes to us by way of a liar is not a question. Thirdly, I already had an entire post which summarized what Mufti Taqi identified as the majority view of what a harf is exactly, and you yourself quoted it in your response. Lastly, the issue of Hafs being called liar is indeed more of an issue, but if you look in your own quote, they acknowledged that he was competent in the reading of `Asim. So like the false conclusion that was drawn from Imam Suyuti's words, I would imagine that something else is going on and after Imam Suyuti clearly saying the complete opposite in the very same work the author quoted him from, I am not keen on taking his quotes at face value. In sha Allah, I'll get back to you.

Last edited by lumumba_s; 16th February 2009 at 13:22.

"Allah is the point. If it is other-than-Allah, then it is besides the point." - Nuh Ha Mim Keller

Re: What exactly are the different Qiraat?

As salamu `alaykum,You apparently were confused when you applied Imam Suyuti's words about the ahruf to the qira'at and falsely claimed that he denied the other qir'aat besides Hafs were mutawatir.

I did not falsely claim anything. I wrote:

Actually, that is your fundamental misunderstanding, as xrillionaire pointed out. In fact, the article clearly delineates the idea that 'ahruf' and 'qira'at' are regarded as synonymous is not true. In fact, it is one of the clear objections to the notion of 'ahruf', because Imam Suyuti himself, as the article points, ultimately regards 'ahruf' as 'mutashabihat', because there is countless opinions of scholars, Suyuti saying over 40, on what exactly they are. Further, Imam Suyuti himself, I believe, acknowledges the 'readings' of the Quran are NOT mutawaatir, with the exception of the Hafs, with the implication being, these readings cannot be considered Quran, for the Quran itself is mutawattir.

A couple of points:

1. It was your misunderstanding that the article was operating under the assumption that qirat and ahruf are the same thing. My comment was directed to your mistaken notion that the article claimed such a thing. As the article clearly states:

It is said that the first person to record these readings in the form of a book was Abū ‘Ubayd Qāsim Ibn Salām (d:224 AH). He recorded twenty five readings; Abū Ja‘far Tabarī (d:310 AH) recorded over twenty readings, while it was Abū Bakr Ibn Mujāhid (d: 324 AH) who selected the seven famous ones20 . The number selected by Ibn Mujāhid (seven) has been objected to by many scholars since this number has led people to think that these seven were the same as the seven Ahruf on which the Qur’ān was supposed to have been revealed:

Abū Shāmah has said: A group of people say that the seven readings found today are the ones implied by the seven Ahruf mentioned in the Ahādīth. However, this is totally against the consensus of the scholars of Islam. This view has arisen only among certain ignorant people. Abū ‘Abbās Ibn ‘Ammār has said: The compiler of the seven readings has done an inappropriate thing. As a result, the masses are faced with a complex situation. People with little knowledge think that the seven Ahruf mean the seven readings. Ibn Mujāhid should have either selected a number greater than seven or a number less than seven to avoid this confusion. (Suyūtī, Itqān Fī ‘Ulūmi’l-Qur’ān, 2nd ed., vol. 1, [Baydār: Manshurāt al-Radī, 1313 AH], p. 274)

The article clearly makes the distinction between the two as stated by the scholars. In fact, anybody with common sense will realize, the only conclusion one can really reach is that the scholars themselves have widely-differing opinions on the issue of ahurf and qirat, they really have no idea what is the reality. In fact, to even make a distinction between ahruf and qiraat is pointless, considering one cannot even define what an' ahruf' is, per Suyuti, who claims over 40 different interpretations on the alleged hadeteh that originates this idea. One needs to define 'ahruf' before one actually even starts to talk about how it allegedly differs from the 'seven' readings. Further, considering that there aren't even seven readings, but more, then we get into even a bigger problem. If there aren't seven readings, but more, then why are scholars even talking about comparisons, when they haven't even gotten their original definitions correct.

This brings me to point 2.

2. After stating the distinction of the article, I then stated that Imam Suyuti declares that their is no consensus on what constitutes ahruf.

3. I then stated, that I believe, Imam Suyuti even held the opinion that the readings of the Quran are not mutawattir. Additionally, notice the word, 'further', after I stated the article makes a distinction between the two, as well as stating that Imam SUyuti says that anything that is claimed as the Quran needs to be considered mutawattir. I did not falsely ascribe to him anything.

Also, let us be very clear, the article, after stating the principle of Suyuti that everything in the Quran is mutawattir, goes on to show how none of these alleged readings fulfill the quality of mutawaatir. So whether SUyuti claims they are mutawattir or not, is irrelevant. The only thing it shows is that he is not consistent to his own methodology.

Now, if the chains of narrators of these variant readings are examined, none of them can be claimed as Mutawātir. They may be Mutawātir from their famous originators but they are certainly not Mutawātir all the way from these originators up to the Prophet (sws). At best, they can be classified as Ahād (isolate reports). An example would suffice to illustrate this.

So whether Suyuti claims the readings as mutawatir, does nothing to change the fact that they are not mutawattir.

When one takes into account the fact that YOU stated that Hafs was the only correct recitation and deny the validity of the other qira'at, that is a question that YOU need to answer. But I would imagine that it has something to do with the fact that there are 10 year old non-Arab children from Pakistan to Morocco who are hufaz in the Qur'an, but probably could not accurately transmit a single chapter from Bukhari in a manner acceptable to the hadith scholars. People were considered accurate transmitters by the verification of the `ulama, not merely because they were well liked. Is it really that hard to understand?

1.

Isn't that the whole point of the article. They answered it, and you haven't answered it. You see, that is the fundamental difference. The recitation of the Quran is not dependent upon Asim or Nafi. The qirat-aimmah has been transmitted by the whole ummah. So when somebody goes against these principles by reports from people who have credibility issues, then the onus is ON YOU to tell us why they should be accepted. The Quran is emphatically clear that it was revealed in one mode of recitation.

2.

Tell me, how does Suyuti define these reports as mutawattir. How does Suyuti claim they are mutawattir, under what principles? Your claiming that the standards of being acceptable in the transmission of the Quran are different than the transmission of hadeeth, yet, the scholas say things like:

Any reading which is grammatically correct by any means, is according to the script of the Uthmānic codices in any way and whose chain of narration is Sahīh cannot be rejected. In fact, it is from among the seven Ahruf on which the Qur’ān was revealed whether the reading be narrated from the seven great readers or the ten or anyone of acknowledged status besides these. (Ibn al-Jazarī, Al-Nashr Fi’l-Qirā’āt al-‘ahsr, vol. 1, [Egypt: Maktabah al-Tujjāriyyah], p. 9)

It is further understood that:

When any of these three criteria is not fulfilled for a reading then such a reading shall be considered weak, or unknown (Shāzah), or unacceptable whether it be from the seven readers or the ten or from those who are even greater than these. This is the correct opinion according to the researchers of the past and recent times19. (Ibn al-Jazarī, Al-Nashr Fi’l-Qirā’āt al-‘ahsr, vol. 1, [Egypt: Maktabah al-Tujjāriyyah], p. 9)

It is quite clear that the scholars state the readings of the Quran, as regards transmission, are no different then hadeeth. They have to fulfill conditions of being saheeh, and yet, every single one of these readers fulfill none of these criteria. Further, as Ron pointed out, the objections against them are not simply that of memory, but flat-out character assasinations. They are liars and fabricators.

Ron: Firstly, it is not the Qur'an of Nafi` or of `Asim, but the riwaya of Nafi` and `Asim. The ahruf and qira'at are two different things. The ahruf relate to the things which I mentioned from Imam Malik while the qira'at relate more properly to tajwid. There clearly are differences in the way in which the Qur'an was recited at the time of the Companions, otherwise, the incident of Uthman would never have happened. Unless people want to claim that Ibn al-Shihab al-Zuhri made that up too.

1.

What incident of Uthman (R)? The only thing one can say for certain is Uthman (R) had copies of the Quran sent to various portions of his empire. But those empires were not Arab territories. The idea that Uthman (R) would compile Quran's based upon the notion that various 'dialects' of the Arabian peninsula were being transmitted isn't even sound from a common sense point of view, considering the people he was allegedly ending it to were people who weren't well-versed in Arabic, let alone a complex issue that the scholars can't evend efine with clarity. What may have been an opinion based upon Az-Zuhri's account doesn't make it the real interpretation. The event of Uthman (R) does not in any way prove the notion of seven readings of the Quran.

2.

Have you even bothered to read the article? DId you even read the criticisms against Az-Zuhri on there, and the internal contradictions within the alleged accounts?

3.

As I stated before, architectural evidence is clearly pointing out that the orthography of the Quran actually goes back before the time of Uthman (S). They have dated verses of the Quran to the time of Umar's (R) rule, which actually is evidence against the traditional account. The reading of the Quran was already defined.

4.

You still have not defined what an 'ahruf' is. Whether or not Mali held one opinion, does not change the fact the opinions are so widely different, nobody can make any solid conclusion. As the article even points out:

Firstly, the very meaning of this Hadīth has baffled everyone, and no one has ever been able to present a convincing explanation of it. Suyūtī has cited forty different interpretations of it in his treatise Al-Itqān fī ‘Ulūmi’l-Qur’ān and after realizing their weakness has admitted in Tanwīru’l-Hawālik, a commentary on the Mu’attā of Imam Mālik, that this Hadīth should be regarded among the Mutashābihāt (ie something whose meaning is not known):

To me the best opinion in this regard is that of the people who say that this Hadīth is from among matters of Mutashābihāt, the meaning of which cannot be understood. (Suyūtī, Tanwīru’l-Hawālik, 2nd ed., [Beirut: Dāru’l-Jayl, 1993], p. 199

Even Suyuti mentions that there are scholars that hold the hadeeth cannot be understood, which negates the very opinion of Malik. Are they modes, dialects, readings, nobody really knows.

Secondly, asking questions is one thing, but implicitly claiming that there has been a conspiracy, the scholars of the Salaf allowed the Qur'an to be altered, and the one reading that is correct comes to us by way of a liar is not a question.

Are you more interested in preserving a scholar than the Quran itself? Let me be clear, the scholars had no control over the transmission of the Quran, none whatsoever. The Quran had already been transmitted by the time of the death of the Prophet (S) and the geographic expanse of the ummah was so quick, that it had gone beyond human hands to intervene with the process. The length of the argument regarding the scholars of the salaf and the transmission of te Quran is that they justified certain readings of the Quran, which have no bearing on the 'alteration' of the Quran. The Quran was fixed, has been fixed, and will continue to be fixed in it's one and only reading.

Thirdly, I already had an entire post which summarized what Mufti Taqi identified as the majority view of what a harf is exactly, and you yourself quoted it in your response. Lastly, the issue of Hafs being called liar is indeed more of an issue, but if you look in your own quote, they acknowledged that he was competent in the reading of `Asim. So like the false conclusion that was drawn from Imam Suyuti's words, I would imagine that something else is going on and after Imam Suyuti clearly saying the complete opposite in the very same work the author quoted him from, I am not keen on taking his quotes at face value. In sha Allah, I'll get back to you

You are not interested in the quotes themselves. You are interested in defending 'traditional' scholarship. Let me be clear, I didn't draw any false conclusion from any quote of Suyuti. If saying I did makes you feel somehow that the objections go away, then you surely don't stand on solid grounds.

Last edited by ihsan; 16th February 2009 at 14:46.

"Those who deny the strength of truth,
God does not give them courage." - Bulleh Shah

Re: What exactly are the different Qiraat?

Firstly, it is not the Qur'an of Nafi` or of `Asim, but the riwaya of Nafi` and `Asim.

Where do I say otherwise? I don't recall calling it "the Qur'an of Nafi'."

The ahruf and qira'at are two different things.

We have clearly established that this is the understanding of the scholars even though Ibn Mujahid was criticized by them for naming 7 qira'aat and accused of potentially causing confusion.

The ahruf relate to the things which I mentioned from Imam Malik

Here's the definition as quoted by you for what the Ahruf are:

Imam Malik's explanation of the hadith and states that the seven acceptable variations relate to variations in: number, gender, placement of diacritical marks, verb, syntax, transposition and pronunciation, giving an example of each.

For the Qira'aat you said:

the qira'at relate more properly to tajwid.

So the slight definition you gave for Qira'at is thus:

Having sat with a scholar of the Qur'an who knew and had ijaza in the seven most popular recitations, much of the qira'at have to do with style and are rooted in grammatical nuances which cannot be so readily dismissed as arbitrary.

Are these definitions correct? Are you saying that there are overlapping elements between the two? Also, wouldn't each of the Ahruf have its own tajweed? Lastly, we have the names of the 10 in relation to the Qira'at. How do we identify each of the Ahruf?

Lastly, the issue of Hafs being called liar is indeed more of an issue, but if you look in your own quote, they acknowledged that he was competent in the reading of `Asim.

Why would I quote it if I didn't know that it said he was competent. Yes, he's competent but he's also dishonest according to them. A person can be both. The fact that he's not trustworthy in either ahadith and seemingly in recitation even though he knew it well says a lot. There's really no point in arguing this one, it's clear that their criticism is harsh; mostly about ahadith, some about recitation and others about his overall character. However, seriously, if someone is a liar in a matter as serious as ahadith how is it that we can simply brush that aside and give him such a grand position as the transmitter of the most widespread qira'ah? People in the Rijal were scrutinized at slightest bit of dishonesty or even mistreatment of animals, how is it that a person who steals books, lies and is criticized is somehow immune from us just calling it as it is?

I look forward to your answers to this and the previous post. I just want you to know that you are not wasting your time. This is the process of learning insha'Allah.

Re: What exactly are the different Qiraat?

As salamu `alaykum,

This is not a new issue, yet it is being presented here as if the author made a profound discovery. The words of Imam Zarkhasi have been responded to by previous scholars, Ibn al-Baqallani being one of them, and of course such a thing is absent from the article. Ulum al-Qur'an is not a new science...

If something is declare mutawatir, `ilm al-rijal and the related sciences are not applied, since the authenticity of the report no longer rests with one particular person. The scholars of hadith and qira'at have concluded almost unanimously that the seven that Ibn Jazari identified are mutawatir, and then others proved that the additional three he considered mashhur are mutawatir as well. Mutawatir hadith still are identified by means of an isnad. Imam Suyuti has been proved to have been falsely cited. And when you look at the footnotes, the very citation that supposedly demonstrates that the tawatir not mutawatir is the very same authority who drew conclusions which completely go against everything that the article is saying... And the rawis are the ones who are not trustworthy?

What is clear is that the facts are being conveniently ignored. It is a fact that the Companions differed in their readings of the Qur'an, which is the whole reason why Uthman did what he did. It is also a fact that the Salaf differed in their readings of the Qur'an. If there was only one acceptable version of the Qur'an, then the words of people like Malik and Ahmad to promote one particular qir'a over the legitimate reading of the Qur'an amounts to nothing other than the vilest form of heresy. The Qur'an was revealed in Makka and Medina. The majority of the Companions resided and taught in Medina. If there is only one acceptable reading of the Qur'an and it is the one that the four caliphs, all of whom resided in Medina taught, then how much sense does it make to identify the correct reading as our modern-day Hafs and not Warsh or Qalun? It is a well-known fact amongst the people of the Qur'an that the other qira'at contain elements of pronunciation that were absent in the Qurayshi dialect and manner of pronunciation. And I am the one not making any sense?

In sha Allah, in terms of the accusations made against Hafs - and they are ONLY made against Hafs (by no more than three people) - in sha Allah I'll try to get an answer. But if we accept that the standards of hadith apply equally to the transmission of the Qur'an (which we indeed do), then once they are established to be mutawatir (which the very same Ibn al-Jazari that they author quotes in an attempt to demonstrate they are not), the science of hadith no longer applies, since the authenticity no longer rests upon single individuals.

In sha Allah, I'll try to get your answer, but I can only laugh out of frustration at some of the absurdities which have been offered as facts. Case in point,

Even Suyuti mentions that there are scholars that hold the hadeeth cannot be understood, which negates the very opinion of Malik.

So Malik, who learned the Qur'an and hadith directly from the the mawla of Ibn `Umar, along with 900 other teachers, 300 of whom learned directly from the Companions, his opinion about a hadith that he himself collected is outright NEGATED by the opinions of a scholar lived a thousand years later in Egypt? In sha Allah, I'll try to get you an answer about Hafs, for I myself want to know. Other than that, have a nice day.

Last edited by lumumba_s; 16th February 2009 at 16:18.

"Allah is the point. If it is other-than-Allah, then it is besides the point." - Nuh Ha Mim Keller

Re: What exactly are the different Qiraat?

The words of Imam Zarkhasi have been responded to by previous scholars, Ibn al-Baqallani being one of them, and of course such a thing is absent from the article. Ulum al-Qur'an is not a new science...

Then you should have no issues responding to the points. Can you recount them, including ibn al-Baqillani's 'responses', if they are actually relevant?

Originally Posted by lumumba_s

Imam Suyuti has been proved to have been falsely cited. And when you look at the footnotes, the very citation that supposedly demonstrates that the tawatir not mutawatir is the very same authority who drew conclusions which completely go against everything that the article is saying... And the rawis are the ones who are not trustworthy?

You keep making accusations that have no proof. Suyuti was cited accurately, without any dispute whatsoever. You claimed I was falsely citing Suyuti, and since then has been proven false, you now change the issue to the article citing him inaccuratly, which again is false. What Suyuti was quoted for was regarding the Quran being mutawattir. There is no disputing this point whatsoever. The articlt then goes on to prove that the claim regarding these readings, which incidentally Suyuti holds as mutawattir, are not mutawatir.

The fact that Suyuti is shown to not be accurate in his own methodology is another issue. All that has been proven is that Suyiti says the Quran has to be mutawattir, and your quote proved that Suyuti held the other readings as mutawattir. The only issue we now have is Suyuti is not true to his own methodology, by asserting that the readings are mutawattir.

There is absolutely no way one can spin their way out of it. What you are attempting to engage in, has absolutely nothing to do with the issue at hand, nothing. It is a side-tracking of the issue.

What is clear is that the facts are being conveniently ignored. It is a fact that the Companions differed in their readings of the Qur'an, which is the whole reason why Uthman did what he did. It is also a fact that the Salaf differed in their readings of the Qur'an. If there was only one acceptable version of the Qur'an, then the words of people like Malik and Ahmad to promote one particular qir'a over the legitimate reading of the Qur'an amounts to nothing other than the vilest form of heresy. The Qur'an was revealed in Makka and Medina. The majority of the Companions resided and taught in Medina. If there is only one acceptable reading of the Qur'an and it is the one that the four caliphs, all of whom resided in Medina taught, then how much sense does it make to identify the correct reading as our modern-day Hafs and not Warsh or Qalun? It is a well-known fact amongst the people of the Qur'an that the other qira'at contain elements of pronunciation that were absent in the Qurayshi dialect and manner of pronunciation. And I am the one not making any sense?

1.

No, it is you that is doing the ignoring. The 'interpretation' put on the act of Uthman goes back to Zuhri. The hadeeth that attributes this to Uthman is so patently full of absurdities, it doesn't have any solid basis. What does dialects of the Quran have to do with people who weren't well-versed in Arabic? It doesn't. None of the Companions recited the Quran in a different way. That is an assertion on your part. Again, that goes back to Az-Zuhri and it would presume that Hadhrat Umar (R) had absolutely no knowledge of something so profound for cuontless years, until after the Fall of Mecca, and this too, regarding a surah that was revealed in Mecca.

2.

Where are these alleged pronounciations within the Quran that you claim are not part of the dialect as understood by the Quraysh, and in fact, all of Arabia actually as the standard reading. The poets of Arabia weren't confined to just the Quraysh and they very well knew the dialect the Quran was in.

So Malik, who learned the Qur'an and hadith directly from the the mawla of Ibn `Umar, along with 900 other teachers, 300 of whom learned directly from the Companions, his opinion about a hadith that he himself collected is outright NEGATED by the opinions of a scholar lived a thousand years later in Egypt? In sha Allah, I'll try to get you an answer about Hafs, for I myself want to know. Other than that, have a nice day.

You should then have no problems in quoting the chains of these 900 other teachers, with 300 of whom directly learned from the Companions to support your point. Where is that evidence? Imam Shafii surely didn't use such statements as evidence when criticizing Malik's methodology. WHere are these chain of readings that goes back to ibn Umar (R)? WHo does it go through? Further, if what you say is true, so that would mean Imam Malik was right, and these countless other schoalrs, that hold the other 39 differing opinions are wrong. How could, per your own words, hold all these scholars with differing opinions wrong. My, oh my, what disrespect. What does that say for your assertions regarding the scholars then? Do you realize your own inconsistencies in your methodology?

Last edited by ihsan; 16th February 2009 at 19:37.

"Those who deny the strength of truth,
God does not give them courage." - Bulleh Shah

Re: What exactly are the different Qiraat?

And further elaborated that he considered the recitation of Nafi` to be sunna. It is a well known statement of Malik and I would assume it is to be found in the Mudawanna or Asadiyya.

Originally Posted by Ron

Do a little homework for me

Al-Hashimi states in Qurra'a al-Qur'an, p. 39:

Sa'eed b. Mansoor reported to us that he heard Malik ibn Anas say, "The recitation of the people of Madina is sunnah." He was asked, "The recitation of Nafi'?" He replied, "Yes."

'Abdullah ibn Ahmad ibn Hanbal said, "I asked my father, 'Which recitation do you prefer?' He replied, "The recitiation of the people of Madeenah [meaning that of Imam Naafi']. And if that is not [available]? He said, "The recitation of Asim."

Maalik said, "Naafi is the Imam of the people in recitation."

And such quotes are quite common on the books of tajwid. And, as I said, I assume the quote from Malik originally can be found in the Mudawanna of Qadi Sahnun or the Asadiyya of Sidi Asad ibn al-Furat. The recitations of the respective cities were known and mass-transmitted (i.e. "the recitation of the people of Medina"); people like Nafi` and `Asim were considered the imams of their respective areas. In terms of Imam Hafs, in sha Allah, I hope I can offer a response.

Last edited by lumumba_s; 16th February 2009 at 20:48.

"Allah is the point. If it is other-than-Allah, then it is besides the point." - Nuh Ha Mim Keller

Re: What exactly are the different Qiraat?

And such quotes are quite common on the books of tajwid. And, as I said, I assume the quote from Malik originally can be found in the Mudawanna of Qadi Sahnun or the Asadiyya of Sidi Asad ibn al-Furat. The recitations of the respective cities were known and mass-transmitted (i.e. "the recitation of the people of Medina"); people like Nafi` and `Asim were considered the imams of their respective areas. In terms of Imam Hafs, in sha Allah, I hope I can offer a response.

Can you clarify who exactly was Imam Malik referring to when he used 'people of Medina', considering he may use the term in a way that does not constitute a mutawattir transmission. Further, who was Imam Malik talking to, when he made this statement? If Nafi was recognized as relaible mode of transmission, why is he asserting it as 'sunnah'. It would already be recognized as such and Malik would not need to make the statement.

'Abdullah ibn Ahmad ibn Hanbal said, "I asked my father, 'Which recitation do you prefer?' He replied, "The recitiation of the people of Madeenah [meaning that of Imam Naafi']. And if that is not [available]? He said, "The recitation of Asim."

How does a recitation become 'not available'? It is obvious, the seven readings are not recognized as Quran, no matter how you spin it.

Further, we need to get back to the issue of mutawattir. The issue is not whether or not the seven readings became 'accepted' by certain pockets of the Muslim community. The reality is, the readings of Nafi and Asim are not mutawattir back to the Prophet (S). Once again, to quote the article:

Now, if the chains of narrators of these variant readings are examined, none of them can be claimed as Mutawātir. They may be Mutawātir from their famous originators but they are certainly not Mutawātir all the way from these originators up to the Prophet (sws). At best, they can be classified as Ahād (isolate reports). An example would suffice to illustrate this.

So again, the onus is on those making the claim the qiraat are valid, to prove they are mutawattir back to the Prophet, especially considering the narrators aren't even reliable, and considered liars. As Zarkashi states:

The opinion of the majority is that these readings are Mutawātir. However, one opinion is that they are Mashhūr …. The truth in this regard is that they are Mutawātir from these seven [Qurr’ā]. As far as their Tawātur from the Prophet (sws) is concerned, this is debatable. For the chain of narrators of these seven are found in the books of Qirā‘āt. These chains are transmission from a single person to another and do not fulfil the condition of Tawātur neither from the first narrator to the last nor in between. (Zarkashī, Burhān, 2nd ed., vol. 1, [Beirut: Dāru’l-Fikr, 1980] p. 319)

Not a single one of these readings fulfill the condition of mutawattir.

Last edited by ihsan; 16th February 2009 at 21:27.

"Those who deny the strength of truth,
God does not give them courage." - Bulleh Shah

Re: What exactly are the different Qiraat?

Originally Posted by ihsan

Not a single one of these readings fulfill the condition of mutawattir.

If we entertain for a minute the idea that not a single one of the qira'at fulfill the condition of mutawatir, then where is the legitimate Qur'an, since the entire ummah recites based upon one of the qira'at?

"Allah is the point. If it is other-than-Allah, then it is besides the point." - Nuh Ha Mim Keller

Re: What exactly are the different Qiraat?

Originally Posted by lumumba_s

If we entertain for a minute the idea that not a single one of the qira'at fulfill the condition of mutawatir, then where is the legitimate Qur'an, since the entire ummah recites based upon one of the qira'at?

So what you are basically admitting is that none of these readings fulfill the condition of mutawattir right?

What was Zarkashi actually referring to when he spoke about the seven readings not being mutawattir? He surely wasn't implying the whole Quran was an 'ahad' report. What was Sullami saying, when he said the following:

The reading of Abū Bakr, ‘Umar, ‘Uthmān and Zayd Ibn Thābit and that of all the Muhājirūn and the Ansār was one. They would read the Qur’ān according to the Qir‘āt al-‘Ammah. This is the same reading which was read out to the Prophet (sws) in the year of his death by Gabriel. Zayd Ibn Thābit22 was also present in this reading [called] the ‘Ardah-i-Akhīrah23. It was in this very reading that he taught the Qur’ān to people till his death. (Zarkashī, Burhān, 2nd ed., vol. 1, [Beirut: Dāru’l-Fikr, 1980] p. 237)

What was Suyuti saying when he stated the following:

The reading on which the Qur’ān was read out to the Prophet (sws) in the year of his death is the same according to which people are reading the Qur’ān today. (Suyūtī, Itqān Fī Ulūmi’l-Qur’ān, 2nd ed., vol. 1, [Baydār: Manshūrāt al-Radī, 1343 AH], p. 177)

Surely, the fact that these alleged 'qiraah' need some 'authority' back to various reciters, implies that what was known as the official Quran was being recited, was it not, by the masses. The scholars surely weren't 'proving' the Quranic text. What is known as readings was obviously exceptions to the rule, that needed to be proven...

As stated before, the Quran was not transmitted by Nafi and Asim, or the reciters from the 'extant' recitations. The Quran was already transmitted and independent of these reciters. The 'extant' recitations are a specialized field, and very few people, including huffaz know them all. This is besides the fact one cannot even agree on how many recitations there are. There are not even seven.

Last edited by ihsan; 16th February 2009 at 22:02.

"Those who deny the strength of truth,
God does not give them courage." - Bulleh Shah

Re: What exactly are the different Qiraat?

As salamu `alaykum,

Originally Posted by Ron

The fact that he's not trustworthy in either ahadith and seemingly in recitation even though he knew it well says a lot. There's really no point in arguing this one, it's clear that their criticism is harsh; mostly about ahadith, some about recitation and others about his overall character. However, seriously, if someone is a liar in a matter as serious as ahadith how is it that we can simply brush that aside and give him such a grand position as the transmitter of the most widespread qira'ah? People in the Rijal were scrutinized at slightest bit of dishonesty or even mistreatment of animals, how is it that a person who steals books, lies and is criticized is somehow immune from us just calling it as it is?

I look forward to your answers to this and the previous post. I just want you to know that you are not wasting your time. This is the process of learning insha'Allah.

Here is the answer... and no one said anything about his competency or reliability in recitation

Only one person called him a kadhdhab and attributed forgery to him, and that is the Rafidi Hafiz Ibn Khirash, whose judgment is extreme. He is on record for calling Dawud al-Zahiri a kafir, and Abu Zur`a publicly rebuked him for that. Al-Dhahabi more than once flatly rejects Ibn Khirash's negative judgments in the Mizan and you should also read his chapter on Ibn Khirash there.

As for the other narration calling him a kadhdhab, I doubt Ibn Ma`in ever called him this because (i) al-Dhahabi relates the same account without the latter wording in Mizan al-I`tidal and (ii) what is established from Ibn Ma`in is that he said of him "Not trustworthy." Also, two other narrations from Ahmad have respectively: "There is no harm in him" and "usable (salih)" while Waki` abd Ibn al-Sawwaf considered him thiqa. The point is that everyone who spoke negatively of him said: "in hadith" including al-Bukhari and Muslim, al-Nasa'i, al-Tirmidhi, al-Bazzar, al-Bayhaqi and others, which confirms the explanation I quoted from al-Dhahabi.

It is obvious that out of all the people quoted amongst the collectors of hadith, none of them said anything more than he wasn't a thiqa. Trustworthiness in hadith is not a moral assessment, but a statement about their memory and accuracy in narrating. Imam Dhahabi, whose rank amongst the hadith critics you know well, explicitly affirmed his competency and reliability in recitation. So was Imam Dhahabi merely defending the status quo? No proof was offered of anything, just the opinion of a single scholar and half-hearted quotations. If anyone is still going to argue that the ability to transmit hadith and Qur'an are the same, they are kidding themselves. They are not interested in the quotes themselves, but in defending an aberrant opinion which has very little to stand on.

And Allah knows best.

Last edited by lumumba_s; 17th February 2009 at 13:51.

"Allah is the point. If it is other-than-Allah, then it is besides the point." - Nuh Ha Mim Keller

Re: What exactly are the different Qiraat?

Originally Posted by lumumba_s

I have not admitted anything... are you going to answer the question?

You said the following:

If we entertain for a minute the idea that not a single one of the qira'at fulfill the condition of mutawatir, then where is the legitimate Qur'an, since the entire ummah recites based upon one of the qira'at?

That to me sounds like an admittance, does it not. So your claiming the Quran is mutawattir based upon the seven qiraah? The ummah learned the Quran from Nafi and Asim, is your claim...

Last edited by ihsan; 17th February 2009 at 14:45.

"Those who deny the strength of truth,
God does not give them courage." - Bulleh Shah